-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
core speed to external (Intel like) speed?
- Thread starter spacerm8
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2003
- Location
- Knoxville, TN
The netburst (Pent4) to ---> AXP / A64 conversion runs about 35 / 65%
in other words
3200+
(2200 X 35%) + 2200 = 2970 (Intel)
3200+ (A64)
(2000 X 65%) + 2000 = 3300 (Intel)
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Location
- Jensen Beach
hmm... so if you have a amd 64 @ 2.5GHz it's similar to a P4 4GHz?
- Thread Starter
- #4
Sentential said:
The netburst (Pent4) to ---> AXP / A64 conversion runs about 35 / 65%
in other words
3200+
(2200 X 35%) + 2200 = 2970 (Intel)
3200+ (A64)
(2000 X 65%) + 2000 = 3300 (Intel)
Then why does the 3200+ calcs add up to 2970 and not 3200? What or where is the missing bit? How does AMD equate 3200+ as an Intel speed?
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2003
- Location
- Knoxville, TN
They rounded up to have something to compete with. The *true* 3200+ which was released later, was in fact 2.3ghz not 2.2. Those numbers are correct. The 3200+ was never as fast as a true 3.2 or even a 3.0, until the A64s came along.spacerm8 said:
Correct. For a newcastle/winchester. For a Clawhammer it is 2.35 (claws are 150 ahead of WC)Graphicism said:
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2004
that was the old athlon xp, they were never *exactly* up to par with the p4. The 3200+ then was more of a marketing tool in my opinion. It seems now that they are closer, they even rate them a little lower than their p4 counterparts *an amd64 3200+ is closer to a 3300+*.
*edit* damn! sent, you got there first!
*edit* damn! sent, you got there first!
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #7
Sentential said:
This doesn't make sense. AMD marketed a chip as 3200+, equiv to a Intel 3.2. If they went rounding everything up then the marketing would have been a disaster waiting to happen.
Forgive my ignorance, what's the 2.35 for a Clawhammer?
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2003
- Location
- Knoxville, TN
Correct since they have 2X the cacheTheCheat said:
- Thread Starter
- #10
Well you guys are leading me down the garden path here. Take a 1500+ cpu, 1333 core. Run the calcs as above and it equals 1800! For sure as hell AMD would have screamed the roof down instead of posting 1500+.
Look at a 2600+, different core speeds depending on FSB and cache so these two items must figure in the calcs somewhere also.
I suspect there must be some other calc AMD used to get to their "Intel" equivalent rating.
Look at a 2600+, different core speeds depending on FSB and cache so these two items must figure in the calcs somewhere also.
I suspect there must be some other calc AMD used to get to their "Intel" equivalent rating.
